Title
Civil Service Commission vs. Maala
Case
G.R. No. 165253
Decision Date
Aug 18, 2005
Employee misrepresented licensure status using falsified documents for promotion; claimed good faith but failed due diligence. Found guilty of dishonesty, dismissed, and disqualified from public office.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 234691)

Employment Background

In July 1990, Bernabet A. Maala began her employment as a casual employee at the NCWDP as a clerk II. In June 1995, she failed the Social Worker Licensure Examination, receiving a grade of 67.40%. Despite this, Maala applied for a permanent position as clerk III, claiming to have passed the examination with a grade of 76.25% and submitted what were later found to be falsified documents.

Administrative Complaint

The CSC issued a memorandum in April 1996, reporting that Maala misrepresented herself as a licensed social worker. This prompted the NCWDP to file an administrative complaint against her, alleging that she submitted spurious documents to support her application for a promotion, which led to Administrative Case No. 96-05-65.

Respondent's Defense

In her defense, Maala claimed she acted in good faith and was misled by a so-called 'fixer,' Armi Liguid, who assured her that her failing examination grade could be reconsidered. She maintained that she had no intentions of dishonesty and submitted documents under the belief that she had legitimately obtained the necessary qualifications.

CSC's Resolution

Following the investigation, the CSC issued a resolution on June 3, 1998, finding Maala guilty of dishonesty resulting from the falsification of official documents. As a consequence, she was dismissed from service with a perpetual disqualification from holding public office or taking future civil service examinations. Maala's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the CSC.

Court of Appeals' Decision

Maala appealed the CSC's decision to the Court of Appeals, which ruled in her favor on April 6, 2004. The Appellate Court found her to have acted in good faith and reversed the CSC's resolutions, exonerating her of the charges of dishonesty and falsification.

Supreme Court's Review

The CSC then contested the Court of Appeals' ruling in the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court erred in finding Maala’s actions as being in good faith. The Supreme Court observed that the determination of good faith is fundamentally a factual question typically beyond its review; however, given the conflicting findings between the CSC and the Court of Appeals, a review was warranted.

Good Faith Analysis

The Supreme Court elaborated on 'good faith' as a state of mind c

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.